I worked in Japan for more than 12 years in the eighties and nineties, in Osaka, Nagoya and Tokyo with the U. S. State Department, Citibank and Merrill Lynch. After many more years in China in banking (Deutsche Bank and Ping An Bank) and consulting, I am back in Tokyo conducting the business of Yangtze Century Ltd. (Hong Kong/Shanghai) and producing this blog. E-mail me at smharnerco@yahoo.com.

Is the U.S. Committed to Defend the Senkakus? Text of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty

On Sunday, September 23, NHK news broadcast a video of U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta seated next to and speaking with Chinese Vice Chairman and soon-to-

China's Vice President Xi Jinping (L) and US Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta review a guard of honor before their meeting at the Pentagon in Washington, DC, on February 14, 2012. China's likely next leader Xi Jinping said that Beijing will take concrete steps to improve human rights as he admitted 'there is always room for improvement.' (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

be supreme leader Xi Jinping on September 19 in Beijing. During that meeting, reported NHK, Panetta told Xi that U.S. policy is that the Senkaku islands (claimed as Chinese territory by Beijing) are covered by the U.S.-Japan security alliance. If there is military conflict, the U.S. is obliged under the alliance to intervene.

The September 21st Yomiuri Shimbun, cited testimony of Assistant Secretary of State for Asian Affairs Kurt Campbell to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the day before confirming that the Senkakus come under Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. Campbell said that U.S. policy on this has been clear since 1997.

Watching and listening carefully to what the Chinese side has made of the Panetta visit, my sense is very different to what may seem to be the meaning and implications of the above.

First, I have seen no mention in the state-controlled Chinese media of Panetta’s comment on the U.S. obligation under the U.S.-Japan treaty. What the media has prominently reported has been Panetta’s affirmation to Xi that U.S. policy ‘takes no sides’ on territorial disputes in Asia, including that over the Senkakus/Diaoyudao. This is also long-standing U.S. policy.

Partly owing to the almost unimaginable power of the weapons and men his department commands, but also his relative gravitas, Panetta has the most credibility in China of any U.S. government official. It was noteworthy that Chinese official media accentuated Panetta’s upbeat appraisal of U.S.-China relations and plans for stepping up exchanges and joint exercises between U.S. and Chinese military forces.

So which is it? Is U.S. policy that we are ready to go to war with China to defend the Senkakus? Didn’t we say we “take no position” on the matter? The answer–in the subtle and often paradoxical and contradictory realm of foreign relations–is both, or, more likely, neither. But we should not think that the subtlety and ambiguity of these positions leaves all sides with the same comfort, options, and risks.

What does Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty actually say though? Here it is:

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

I am reminded of an interview given about two years ago by Japan’s last genuinely successful prime minister, Nakasone Yasuhiro, whose tenure roughly matched Reagan’s. Advising how Japan should conduct its foreign policy, and particularly the pivotal relationship with the U.S., Nakasone was trenchantly realistic: Japan should endeavor to procure (in the legal sense of “cause to do”) U.S. power to serve Japan’s interests and objectives.

In the case of the Senkakus, this seems to have happened. Or at least, when the Noda government felt compelled to respond to the force majeure situation created by Tokyo governor Ishihara’s bid to buy the islands, and decided upon nationalization, the U.S.-Japan treaty was available as perhaps the decisive element that gave the decision makers the confidence they needed to make the decision.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Hi, I am from South Japan resident. And from one of the oldest clans in Japan who lived with all histories on trades with China, Okinawa, and et al. So yes, we do know a lot about historical backgrounds on Senkakus and Okinawa, more than some professors specialized in Asia studies whose study materials were solely Chinese materials and assisted by Chinese officials.

Anyhow, my question.

I am wondering, why are you saying Japan-US agreement “if your country is attacked, we will help you” is invalid officially?

I am sure – after seeing your background – that you can ask people close to White House to confirm about this. Or you are so sure that Japan’s relationship with the US is dead as this is what is said in China?

You don’t have to answer my Q if you’d like not want to. I can see that already by reading your stories over the past weeks.

Motojiro, I can understand that you do not like reading or hearing that Japan should doubt the willingness of the U.S. to confront China militarily to defend the Senkakus. I refer you to two very important books that raise these doubts. The first (in Japanese) is チャイメリカー米中結託と日本の進路 (Chimerica–U.S.-China Interdependence and the Way Forward for Japan),by Professor Yabuki Susumu 矢吹晋. The other (in English) is The China Choice: Why America Should Share Power, Hugh White by professor of strategic studies at Australian National University. Both books make the point that serious military conflict between the U.S. and China is unthinkable, both because of the potentially catastrophic costs–in lives and treasure–and because of the fundamental illogic and lack of justification in terms of vital U.S. interests. Please do not think the Senkakus count as vital U.S. interests. They do not and should not. Professor Yabuki’s book makes the profoundly important point that I repeat in today’s post: in today’s and tomorrow’s context of U.S.-China interdependent relations, the U.S.-Japan security alliance has lost all credibility as a deterrent, and in reality is more a threat to than a safeguard of Japan’s security. Japan should abrogate the treaty and pursue its interests through active diplomacy. (In fact, this is what is happening and must remain the way forward in the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute, where the U.S. expending most of its influence to restrain Japan’s response to Chinese actions, for fear of being pulled in.) Professor White sees the expansion of Chinese power and appreciation of its own interests, particularly in Asia, as natural, inevitable, and acceptable. I agree. He observes, however, that the post-WWII East Asia order has been one of U.S. military primary or hegemony. Japan has been a U.S. client serving as an appendage of regional U.S. power primacy. China is no longer accepting that U.S. regional power primacy and they should not be expected to. White proffers a “concert of powers” model for a new regional order, where four regional powers–China, Japan, the U.S., and India would agree not to individually or in concert seek to dominate each other, but would share order-keeping authority in areas outside the perimeters of their vital interests. White’s book is an exciting intellectual read. And it is not just ivory power speculation. It is a sober and realistic analysis of the changing power relations and interests of Japan, China, and the U.S. and presents the best framework I have seen for a comprehensive way forward. Not surprisingly, perhaps, Professors White and Yabuki reach roughly the same conclusion about Japan: the security relationship with the U.S. under the alliance cannot and will not stand an (inevitable) adjustment to new Asian realities. Japan must regain and exercise its independence and sovereignty in Asia.

I see those books seem to be interesting. One from Japan that seems agitating people to have more Japan Self Defense Military force (and to do that changing laws that is already on the way), and one from why, Australia where got one of the biggest Chinese investments for recent years – and now fearful about the power in own industries.

Hmmm.

So much to mull, including who think what why.

No one here in Japan, especially South where always witnessed threats coming from South Korea and China + alpha, Japan’s Senkaku nationalization decision was made with a belief – US protection.

We believe so because Chinese Military will invade neighboring countries regardless historical truth-faulse reasoning.

They did on South China Sea already, with Senkakus, only the next is to invade Okinawa where US camp is. All to (1) justify funding Chinese defense budgets (2) oil, gas, rare earth deposits found in Japan/ US sea territories.

So we believe that there is exactly no “right time” to show our attitudes on our territory to China.

Beside, it has been the US who asked Japan to (1) show leadership to defend our territory before anything (2) do everything before US force will get involved through Gaikou “foreign relation negotiation/ contacts” (3) manage Japanese citizen’s conflicting views about introducing more defense to camps – especially South Japan.

We are just doing these. Still going concern stage. And believe it is just way too early to claim “Japan-US agreement on protection” is dead.

When dead, how dead, why dead? – it is quite mesmerizing to give up our hope through “Gaikou” – adjusting accordingly to the situation in the future.

We know Japan’s industries in China produces 1/3 corporate tax revenues. We know what their withdrawals for the next 2-3 years mean to incomes, employment, foreign (non-Japanese) investments, industries in China. We know what it would mean economically to Japan.

We are going to weigh and look at how things will go. If these decisions will turn out to be “lucky” or “bad” in our future.

Then there will be other books, talking about the agreement’s validity. Maybe you will write about it again then.

Meantime, what you wrote sounded pretty too far from what it is happening.

Just like “Tokyo-sama” writes something about places so remote from them.

To readers living outside Japan, never been here, it sounds so believable – enough to think “there will be a big war between Japan and China.”

I would like to point out that simply because the economies of the U.S. and China are intertwined (as well as in so many other ways) that doesn’t mean that was is unthinkable. France and Germany had highly intertwined economic relations in the inter-war period as did other European states and we know what happened there.

Stephen, you wrote: “I hope the issue is never forced. But if it is, the U.S. cannot, should not, and will not fight for the Senkakus”

I think the US really has one option, “it will not” go to war with China to protect Japan for the islands. A more accurate statement would be why should the US go to war with China when China wants those islands only. It is not like Communist China is invading Democratic Japan.

And, I’m no US constitution expert, but why would such a “dumb” law be written in the constution to protect another foreign country? Not to mention, we all know that what is under “contract” can always be challenged and refuted.

Article Act 5 was wistfully created without any countries(World) knew that,so it’s not trues at all. US is busybody go around the world and promote to warn other nation about war . More business for US to sell weapon to kill more innocence people. Don’t forgot US was attack at Hawaii Pearl Harbor and huge damaged by Japanese,then US also drop two atomic bomb at Nagasaki and Hiroshima,Japan. They are enemy ,how can they sign pact together ,Both are liar. Even that have ,this act is against China claim in South China Sea belong in ancient time. China also prepare aggravate trouble to this area ,for sure will counter back them off completely.

Article Act 5 was wistfully created without any countries(World) knew that,so it’s not trues at all. US is busybody go around the world and promote to warn other nation about war . More business for US to sell weapon to kill more innocence people. Don’t forgot US was attack by Japanese at Hawaii Pearl Harbor and huge damaged,dead and destroyed by Japanese planes,then US also drop two atomic bomb at Nagasaki and Hiroshima,Japan. They are enemy ,how can they sign pact together ,Both are liar. Even that have ,this act is against China claim in East or South China Sea belong in ancient time. China also prepare aggravate trouble to this area ,for sure will counter back them off completely.

I follow what everyone is saying and hear differing views that are merely because of interpretations of the treaty. The truth is and hopefully everyone will eventually see it is that Japan is and will always be a hostile people, if they believe they are backed by the US then they will push an escalation. In the history between Japan and China there is still remaining bitterness for the Japanese occupations and massacres of Chinese citizens. Because of this, as an American living and teaching in China things are a little touchy here as the US is oft considered siding with Japan. I would feel much better if the US would publicly say that there will be no conflict over these islands and if Japan does something to escalate it they will be the first to suffer the US military wrath. This is good cause why Japan should not have ever been allowed to start building a navy or military, keep them dependant on the US and under control, we know what they can do if unchecked.